SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2010
Urinary tract infection in children.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of urinary tract infection and the validity of urine analysis in the diagnosis of uti in febrile under-fives at Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Parental Knowledge and Awareness of Childhood Urinary Tract Infections: A Cross Sectional Survey.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- The risk factors for children with primary nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational pediatrics · 2021Article
- Pyelonephritis in Pediatric Uropathic Patients: Differences from Community-Acquired Ones and Therapeutic Protocol Considerations. A 10-Year Single-Center Retrospective Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUp to 11.3% of girls and 3.6% of boys will have had a urinary tract infection (UTI) by the age of 16 years, and recurrence of infection is common. Vesicoureteric reflux is identified in up to 40% of children being investigated for a first UTI, and is a risk factor for, but weak predictor of, renal parenchymal defects. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatment of acute urinary tract infection in children? What are the effects of interventions to prevent recurrence? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 25 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics (short initial intravenous antibiotics, long initial intravenous antibiotics, initial oral antibiotics, single-dose or single-day courses of oral antibiotics, short courses of oral antibiotics, long courses of oral antibiotics, immediate empirical antibiotics, delayed antibiotics, prolonged delay of antibiotics, prophylactic antibiotics); immunotherapy; surgical correction of minor functional abnormalities; and surgical correction of moderate to severe vesicoureteric reflux.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21733199PMC2907613What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.